The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a lower court’s ruling that a company’s patent was unenforceable because of the company president’s misconduct toward the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office even though he wasn’t the inventor or patent filer.

The April 27 majority panel ruling in Avid Identification Systems Inc. v. Crystal Import Corp. (pdf) affirmed an Eastern District of Texas ruling. The district court found that Avid’s patent for a device to read implanted animal identification chips was valid and infringed, but unenforceable because of Avid president Hannis Stoddard’s inequitable conduct toward the PTO. Specifically, it found that Stoddard’s failure to inform the PTO of his trade show demo of the technology more than a year before the application filing date rendered the patent unenforceable.

To rule on whether a party’s inequitable conduct should nullify the patent, courts weigh whether the party intended to deceive the patent office with information a reasonable examiner would consider to be important or material to the patent at issue.

Avid, which makes radio frequency identification chips, sued competitor Datamars SA, its subsidiary Crystal Import and other competitors in 2004 for patent infringement, unfair competition and false advertising claims. The other defendants settled, but a jury returned a $26,981 verdict on the patent infringement claim and $6 million verdict on the unfair competition claim against Datamars.

After the district court ruling on Datamars’ post-trial motion to hold the patent unenforceable because of Hannis’ inequitable conduct, the parties entered into a multipronged settlement.

They agreed that Datamars would pay only $3 million for the unfair competition claim. They also agreed that Datamars would not oppose Avid’s motion for reconsideration of the district court’s inequitable conduct decision or its Federal Circuit appeal. The parties also decided that Datamars would pay the $26,981 verdict for patent infringement only if Avid successfully reversed the inequitable conduct ruling.

More….

PHILADELPHIA, Apr 27, 2010 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) — Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Goldman Sachs (GS), between October 15, 2009 and the time it was publicly revealed on April 16, 2010, inclusive (the “Class Period”), against Goldman and certain of its officers and/or directors for violations of the 1934 Act. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from April 26, 2010. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Deborah R. Gross or Susan R. Gross at 866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600 or via email at debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com. A copy of the complaint can be viewed on the Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. website at www.bernardmgross.com.

Goldman is a financial holding company that provides global banking, securities and investment management services in the United States and Internationally. The complaint alleges that Goldman and certain of its officers and executives with violations of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants failed to disclose information about the company’s business, specifically with respect to the marketing of ABACUS 2007-AC1 (”ABACUS”). ABACUS is a synthetic collateralized debt obligation (”CDO”) that was marketed to investors in early 2007. Investors in ABACUS have lost over $1 billion. The SEC recently filed a complaint against Goldman for “making materially misleading statements and omissions” in connection with the marketing of ABACUS. ABACUS was structured and tied to the performance of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities. As result of defendants’ false statements, Goldman stock traded at inflated levels during the Class Period. After the revelations seeped into the market, the Company’s shares were hammered by massive sales, sending them down more than 13% from their price before these disclosures, on huge trading volume. Goldman stock plummeted $24.05, declining from $184.27 per share on April 15, 2010 to close at $160.70 per share on April 16, 2010.

The plaintiff is represented by Law Offices Bernard M. Gross P.C. The firm has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or rights or interests with respect to these matters,

PLEASE CONTACT: Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. Susan R. Gross, Esquire Deborah R. Gross, Esquire Telephone: 866-561-3600 (toll free) or 215-561-3600 E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com

This news release was distributed by GlobeNewswire, www.globenewswire.com

SOURCE: Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.

CONTACT:  Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
866-561-3600
215-561-3600

The U.S. Supreme Court said Tuesday investors who lost huge amounts betting on the blockbuster drug Vioxx can sue Merck & Co. over whether the pharmaceutical giant provided enough information about the painkiller’s risks before it was pulled from the market.

The high court agreed with a federal appeals court’s decision to allow a class-action securities lawsuit. The suit was over whether the drugmaker provided adequate information about the drug’s risks before its withdrawal.

The Whitehouse Station, N.J.-based company pulled the drug on Sept. 30, 2004, because it doubled the risks of heart attack, stroke and death. Investors lost tens of billions of dollars in shareholder value overnight.

The class-action lawsuit will now move forward in federal court.

“Merck is disappointed in today’s decision, but believes that the allegations in the complaint are unfounded and will continue to defend itself vigorously,” said Bruce Kuhlik, the drugmaker’s executive vice president and general counsel. “The company has already made a motion to dismiss the operative complaint on numerous other grounds, and will renew that motion in the district court.”

Investors have two years to sue a company accused of defrauding investors. Merck argued that the two-year clock began when the first hint of Vioxx trouble was made public in September 2001. Investors argued that the two-year time limit should not have been started in 2001.

Justice Stephen Breyer, writing an unanimous judgment for the court, agreed with the investors. “The plaintiff’s suit is timely,” he said.

After it pulled Vioxx from the market, Merck was sued by shareholders, patients and survivors claiming Vioxx caused heart attacks and strokes, and from insurance plans seeking reimbursement for their costs for covering Vioxx prescriptions.

Read more …

ALBANY, N.Y. (CN) – Ulster County and three towns in New York say they’re the targets of a multibillion-dollar revenge and extortion plot aimed at “disrupting the administration of local government,” because a town issued two traffic tickets to the plot’s alleged ringleader.

The federal RICO complaint accuses seven people of “harassing, defrauding and attempting to extort employees and elected officials of local governments into allowing defendants to run afoul or otherwise ignore both federal and state law.”

Plaintiffs include Ulster County, the Towns of Lloyd, Rosendale and Ulster, and 15 people, including judges, municipal attorneys, and a chief of police.
“This is a civil action seeking damages arising out of defendants’ repeated and persistent fraudulent and illegal activity by falsely representing that defendants are the holders of valid Maritime and/or UCC liens against plaintiffs. These purported liens have been filed in various local and state offices to harass and extort plaintiffs,” according to the 35-page complaint.

UCC financial statements are customarily filed with a county or secretary of state, detailing personal property taken as collateral from a borrower.
The towns say the plot is revenge for two tickets that lead defendant Richard Enrique Ulloa received at a traffic stop in Rosendale, a rural town in Ulster County, in the Hudson Valley.

Ulloa was sent to Ulster County Jail after failing to provide identification to Rosendale Town Justice Robert Vosper, a plaintiff in the case.
“Shortly thereafter, defendant Richard Ulloa began a pattern of harassment and attempted extortion towards plaintiffs, including, but not limited to, filing purported maritime liens and UCC statements containing fraudulent statements asserting that plaintiffs owed defendants amounts totaling several billion dollars,” the complaint states. “The liens and UCC statements were not only fraud, but part of a course of intimidation by defendant Richard Ulloa” and others.

Courthouse News

BALTIMORE — According to new reports, home foreclosures in Maryland have gone up 80 percent compared to this time last April.

Watch Kim Dacey’s Report

To help those in trouble, financial experts, mortgage lenders and housing counselors met with folks in danger of losing their homes on Monday night at Overlea High School.The experts said one reason for the spike in foreclosures could be that some mortgage deferment programs, started at the beginning of the recession, are now ending.Whatever the reason, the workshop was geared toward making sure the number of foreclosures goes down.The volunteers didn’t just help people with foreclosure issues, but they also discussed how to deal with a decrease in value of a home.”We purchased our house at a real high price and it went down really quick,” workshop attendee Veronica said. “So we want to modify the loan and try and sell it see what our options are.”Those who attended got some general advice first, and then they got to meet one-on-one with a person from their mortgage company to learn about options.Since the mortgage crisis, there are federal programs and even some bank-sponsored programs that have been created.The financiers said people can also modify their loan or even reduce payments temporarily.”Call early. Contact your lender right away, even if you think it’s a couple months out. Contact your lender early so you can discuss your situation with them personally and see if you can’t come up with a way in which to stay in your home,” M&T Bank worker Chuck Martin said.There’s another foreclosure workshop next Monday at Stemmers Run Middle School in Essex at 6:30 p.m.

Lawyers for ousted former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich asked a federal judge to compel President Barack Obama to give testimony in connection to charges of soliciting payments to fill Obama’s vacated senate seat.

Records concerning the case were recently released containing errors: Redacted names were left visible, shedding some light on the process the former governor took to fill Obama’s senate seat after he was elected president, according to the Chicago Sun Times.

Records submitted by Blagojevich’s defense lawyers read that that Obama called a union official the day before he won the election against Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to discuss the possibility of Valerie Jarrett replacing him in the U.S. Senate.

The same filing also read that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had several discussions with Blagojevich’s staff in effort to endorse potential senate replacements, according to the Sun Times.

The defense filing detailed several statements made by Service Employees International Union official Tom Balanoff to special agents within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as part of the FBI’s investigation into alleged criminal acts committed by Blagojevich and his staff.

Both Balanoff’s statements and the record of Obama’s phone call were not intended to be made public. Blagojevich’s lawyers filed the records under a seal, according to the Sun Times.

A glitch in the court’s computer records system allowed viewers to see sections that were previously blacked out. Other details found in the filing that were not meant for public consumption included statements made by convicted political fundraiser and business man Tony Rezko, and other details from closed meetings.

One other detail found in the filing involved Emanuel calling then governor Blagojevich after Jarrett took herself out of the senate seat race to urge the former governor to not appoint U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. The filing also detailed that Emanuel did support placing Urban League President Cheryle Jackson in Obama’s former seat, according to the Sun times.

Two sources who said they are familiar with investigation into Blagojevich claimed that Obama told Balanoff on Nov. 3, 2008 that he could go ahead and talk with Blagojevich’s staff about possibly appointing Jarrett. Obama reportedly said he felt Jarrett would be a strong senator.

The court filing by Blagojevich’s lawyers do not accuse Obama of any wrongdoing.

His lawyers asked the judge recently to subpoena the president to testify, under the justification that Obama’s testimony will help corroborate evidence Blagojevich’s defense team will try to use in court, the Sun Times reported.

Both the White House and the U.S. Attorney’s office declined to comment.

After Blagojevich’s arrest in November 2008, the White House released a report that stated Obama’s preference that Jarrett replace him. But it also said he wouldn’t stand in her way to get the seat or actively seek her appointment.

We were wondering when we might see one of the heavyweight plaintiffs’ firms file suit against Goldman, in the wake of the SEC’s April 16 lawsuit.

And now we have one.

The firm formerly known as Coughlin Stoia (now known as Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd) filed suit against Goldman and three of its senior executives on Monday, accusing the firm of failing to disclose the SEC investigation prior to the SEC’s filing suit. (Click here for the complaint.)

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Manhattan, asks for class-action status on behalf of Goldman shareholders. It is the third known case to be filed against Goldman Sachs since the SEC filed civil charges against the bank on April 16. Two other shareholder lawsuits were filed Friday in New York Supreme Court in Manhattan, though those are framed as derivative suits, in which shareholders are technically suing on behalf of the company itself.

A spokesman for Goldman Sachs didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment.

The shareholder complaint filed Monday revolves around the Wells Notice that Goldman received sometime in the summer or fall of 2009 from the SEC relating to a transaction involving a portfolio of sub-prime mortgages. A Wells Notice is a notification from a securities regulator that it intends to recommend enforcement action and affords the respondent an opportunity to explain why such an action is not appropriate.

The lawsuit alleges that Goldman Sachs executives failed to reveal that the company had received a Wells Notice. “Goldman chose not to issue a Form 8-K alerting investors to this event and later even omitted this information from its Form 10-Qs, while updating ‘Legal Proceedings’ as to other cases,” the complaint alleges. “As a result, investors were unaware the SEC was even investigating ABACUS 2007-AC1,” the complaint said.

Darren Robbins, who is representing the plaintiff, said the lawsuit focuses on Goldman executives and their “failure to reveal” interactions with the SEC. That Goldman had gotten a Wells Notice on the transaction is “something shareholders would want to know, and they never disclosed it,” he said. “When they did, shareholders got pummeled to the tune of $20 a share,” Mr. Robbins added.

HOUSTON (CN) – Three plaintiffs in a FenPhen drug liability class action say their law firm overcharged clients, taking more than $29 million for heart tests it performed on “tens of thousands” of potential clients who did not even join in the lawsuit. The three women sued George Fleming and Fleming & Associates in Harris County Court.

Plaintiffs Rebecca Wilson, Debbie McCullars-Vanderford and DeLaine Anderson-Carpenter say Fleming and his firm charged all their more than 8,000 FenPhen clients “approximately 54 percent of their total recovery as fees and expenses.”

Wyeth’s diet drug FenPhen was removed from the market in 1997 when it was found to be associated with heart disease.

“Under the guise of a ’study’ by a Utah cardiologist named Dr. Paul Hopkins, Fleming devised a plan to charge clients, without their knowledge or informed consent, tens of millions of dollars Fleming and F&A spent for echocardiograms that turned out to be negative,” according to the complaint.

The women say the “study” gave Fleming cover to “transform millions in unrecoverable costs” he spent trying to round up clients.

They claims that Fleming also defrauded clients by keeping millions of dollars in inflated fees for postage, copies, court costs, court reporters, experts, research, travel and interest from banks that financed his firm’s activities.

The women say these fees had nothing to do with each individual client’s case.

“In fact, defendants did not provide clients with any detailed breakdown of $40 million plus in total expenses that defendants charged to clients,” the complaint states.

According to their settlement agreement, Wyeth told Fleming and his firm they would not recover attorney’s fees unless 95 percent of their clients agreed to accept the settlement amounts, the three women say. They add that Wyeth said it would “not be involved in any way in allocating the money between Fleming and F&A’s clients.”

To persuade his clients to accept the offer, Fleming included false statements in the settlement documents, claiming the settlement was based on “Wyeth’s conclusions regarding the grouping, subgrouping and level of recovery of each of our clients,” according to the complaint.

Fleming fired his lead lawyer for the FenPhen litigation, who told him that the “negative echocardiogram” charges were inappropriate, and not fully disclosed by the settlement materials, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs seek exemplary damages, alleging breach of contract, fraud and conversion.
They are represented by Charles Kirklin of Houston.

COURTHOUSE NEWS

WASHINGTON (CN) – The lawyer for an Italian cruise operator came under fire Wednesday in the Supreme Court over his claim that an injured passenger’s failure to sue the right company was not a mistake. “I make mistakes … and so do you and so does everybody else,” Justice Stephen Breyer said.

Leaning forward in his seat, Breyer led the attack on attorney Robert Glazier’s claim that passenger Wanda Krupski’s lawsuit should not be revived because it named the wrong defendant.

“What possible reason is there that somebody who is hurt on a ship … would deliberately sue the wrong person?” Breyer asked Glazier. “If you were representing this person, would you want to sue the company that could give you some money if they are liable? Or would you rather sue the Bank of America that has nothing to do with it?”

The question prompted laughter in the courtroom and a silent chuckle from Justice Samuel Alito on the other side of the bench.

Alito and Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked their own versions of Breyer’s question, pressing Glazier for evidence that the error was more than a mistake. Glazier, who appeared flustered and defensive at times, had trouble answering to the justices’ satisfaction.

He argued that the injured passenger’s attorney, Mark Bendure, knew or should have known that the correct company to sue was the Italian carrier Costa Crociere S.p.A., not the Florida-based Costa Cruise Lines. The companies have similar names, but Costa Cruise is a sales agent for Costa Crociere.

Glazier urged the high court to uphold the 11th Circuit’s dismissal of the lawsuit, because Bendure did not sue his client within the one-year deadline.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out, repeatedly, that Costa Crociere “conveniently” waited for the one-year statute of limitations to expire before notifying Bendure that he had sued the wrong party.

Glazier didn’t help his cause by mixing up the English and Italian company names at one point, lending credence to the claim that the confusingly similar names contributed to the error.

“Now which is it? Is that a Freudian slip?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked, quipping, “Just a mistake.” And Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that “the ticket itself confuses the two companies.” He asked, “Is that a mistake, incidentally?”

Glazier appeared to gain a small amount of sympathy from Justice Antonin Scalia, who said Bendure should have read the contract carefully before filing suit.
But Breyer insisted that the case boiled down to a basic mistake.

“Have you ever driven a car where your wife has said turn left and you have turned right?” he asked Glazier. “Did you do it by mistake? Yes, of course you did. It’s happened to every human being.”

Scalia interrupted, “I think your wife made a mistake. I don’t think you made a mistake.”
“No, my wife does not make mistakes,” Breyer replied, to laughter.

The high court is expected to rule in Krupski v. Costa Crociere, no. 09-337, early this summer

COURTHOUSE NEWS